<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>FREEDOM FROM THE KNOWN CHAPTER 5</TITLE>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="k.css"></HEAD><BODY>
<TABLE align=center border=0 width=450><TR><TD align=center height=80><br>
<FONT size=5 color=black><B>FREEDOM FROM THE KNOWN CHAPTER 5</B></FONT><br><br><br><DIV class='PP2'>Before we go any further I would like to ask you what is your fundamental, lasting interest in life?  Putting all oblique answers aside and dealing with this question directly and honestly, what would you answer?  Do you know?
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Isn't it yourself?  Anyway, that is what most of us would say if we answered truthfully.  I am interested in my progress, my job, my family, the little corner in which I live, in getting a better position for myself, more prestige, more power, more domination over others and so on.  I think it would be logical, wouldn't it, to admit to ourselves that that is what most of us are primarily interested in - 'me' first?
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Some of us would say that it is wrong to be primarily interested in ourselves.  But what is wrong about it except that we seldom decently, honestly, admit it?  If we do, we are rather ashamed of it. So there it is - one is fundamentally interested in oneself, and for various ideological or traditional reasons one thinks it is wrong. But what one thinks is irrelevant.  Why introduce the factor of its being wrong?  That is an idea, a concept.  What is a fact is that one is fundamentally and lastingly interested in oneself.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
You may say that it is more satisfactory to help another than to think about yourself.  What is the difference?  It is still self-concern.  If it gives you greater satisfaction to help others, you are concerned about what will give you greater satisfaction.  Why bring any ideological concept into it?  Why this double thinking?  Why not say, `What I really want is satisfaction, whether in sex, or in helping others, or in becoming a great saint, scientist or politician'?  It is the same process, isn't it?  Satisfaction in all sorts of ways, subtle and obvious, is what we want.  When we say we want freedom we want it because we think it may be wonderfully satisfying, and the ultimate satisfaction, of course, is this peculiar idea of self-realization.  What we are really seeking is a satisfaction in which there is no dissatisfaction at all.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Most of us crave the satisfaction of having a position in society because we are afraid of being nobody.  Society is so constructed that a citizen who has a position of respect is treated with great courtesy, whereas a man who has no position is kicked around. Everyone in the world wants a position, whether in society, in the family or to sit on the right hand of God, and this position must be recognized by others, otherwise it is no position at all.  We must always sit on the platform.  Inwardly we are whirlpools of misery and mischief and therefore to be regarded outwardly as a great figure is very gratifying.  This craving for position, for prestige, for power, to be recognized by society as being outstanding in some way, is a wish to dominate others, and this wish to dominate is a form of aggression.  The saint who seeks a position in regard to his saintliness is as aggressive as the chicken pecking in the farmyard. And what is the cause of this aggressiveness?  It is fear, isn't it?
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Fear is one of the greatest problems in life.  A mind that is caught in fear lives in confusion, in conflict, and therefore must be violent, distorted and aggressive.  It dare not move away from its own patterns of thinking, and this breeds hypocrisy.  Until we are free from fear, climb the highest mountain, invent every kind of God, we will always remain in darkness.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Living in such a corrupt, stupid society as we do, with the competitive education we receive which engenders fear, we are all burdened with fears of some kind, and fear is a dreadful thing which warps, twists and dulls our days.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
There is physical fear but that is a response we have inherited from the animals.  It is psychological fears we are concerned with here, for when we understand the deep-rooted psychological fears we will be able to meet the animal fears, whereas to be concerned with the animal fears first will never help us to understand the psychological fears.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
We are all afraid about something; there is no fear in abstraction, it is always in relation to something.  Do you know your own fears - fear of losing your job, of not having enough food or money, or what your neighbours or the public think about you, or not being a success, of losing your position in society, of being despised or ridiculed - fear of pain and disease, of domination, of never knowing what love is or of not being loved, of losing your wife or children, of death, of living in a world that is like death, of utter boredom, of not living up to the image others have built about you, of losing your faith - all these and innumerable other fears - do you know your own particular fears?  And what do you usually do about them?  You run away from them, don't you, or invent ideas and images to cover them?  But to run away from fear is only to increase it.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
One of the major causes of fear is that we do not want to face ourselves as we are.  So, as well as the fears themselves, we have to examine the network of escapes we have developed to rid ourselves of them.  If the mind, in which is included the brain, tries to overcome fear, to suppress it, discipline it, control it, translate it into terms of something else, there is friction, there is conflict, and that conflict is a waste of energy.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The first thing to ask ourselves then is what is fear and how does it arise?  What do we mean by the word fear itself?  I am asking myself what is fear not what I am afraid of.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
I lead a certain kind of life; I think in a certain pattern; I have certain beliefs and dogmas and I don't want those patterns of existence to be disturbed because I have my roots in them.  I don't want them to be disturbed because the disturbance produces a state of unknowing and I dislike that.  If I am torn away from everything I know and believe, I want to be reasonably certain of the state of things to which I am going.  So the brain cells have created a pattern and those brain cells refuse to create another pattern which may be uncertain.  The movement from certainty to uncertainty is what I call fear.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
At the actual moment as I am sitting here I am not afraid; I am not afraid in the present, nothing is happening to me, nobody is threatening me or taking anything away from me.  But beyond the actual moment there is a deeper layer in the mind which is consciously or unconsciously thinking of what might happen in the future or worrying that something from the past may overtake me.  So I am afraid of the past and of the future.  I have divided time into the past and the future.  Thought steps in, says, `Be careful it does not happen again', or `Be prepared for the future.  The future may be dangerous for you.  You have got something now but you may lose it. You may die tomorrow, your wife may run away, you may lose your job. You may never become famous.  You may be lonely.  You want to be quite sure of tomorrow.'
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Now take your own particular form of fear.  Look at it.  Watch your reactions to it.  Can you look at it without any movement of escape, justification, condemnation or suppression? Can you look at that fear without the word which causes the fear? Can you look at death, for instance, without the word which arouses the fear of death?  The word itself brings a tremor, doesn't it, as the word love has its own tremor, its own image?  Now is the image you have in your mind about death, the memory of so many deaths you have seen and the associating of yourself with those incidents - is it that image which is creating fear?  Or are you actually afraid of coming to an end, not of the image creating the end?  Is the word death causing you fear or the actual ending?  If it is the word or the memory which is causing you fear then it is not fear at all.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
You were ill two years ago, let us say, and the memory of that pain, that illness, remains, and the memory now functioning says, `Be careful, don't get ill, again'.  So the memory with its associations is creating fear, and that is not fear at all because actually at the moment you have very good health.  Thought, which is always old, because thought is the response of memory and memories are always old - thought creates, in time, the feeling that you are afraid which is not an actual fact.  The actual fact is that you are well.  But the experience, which has remained in the mind as a memory, rouses the thought, `Be careful, don't fall ill again'.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
So we see that thought engenders one kind of fear.  But is there fear at all apart from that?  Is fear always the result of thought and, if it is, is there any other form of fear?  We are afraid of death - that is, something that is going to happen tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, in time.  There is a distance between actuality and what will be.  Now thought has experienced this state; by observing death it says, `I am going to die.' Thought creates the fear of death, and if it doesn't is there any fear at all? Is fear the result of thought?  If it is, thought being always old, fear is always old.  As we have said, there is no new thought. If we recognise it, it is already old.  So what we are afraid of is the repetition of the old - the thought of what has been projecting into the future.  Therefore thought is responsible for fear.  This is so, you can see it for yourself.  When you are confronted with something immediately there is no fear.  It is only when thought comes in that there is fear.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Therefore our question now is, is it possible for the mind to live completely, totally, in the present?  It is only such a mind that has no fear.  But to understand this, you have to understand the structure of thought, memory and time.  And in understanding it, understanding not intellectually, not verbally, but actually with your heart, your mind, your guts, you will be free from fear; then the mind can use thought without creating fear.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Thought, like memory, is, of course, necessary for daily living. It is the only instrument we have for communication, working at our jobs and so forth.  Thought is the response to memory, memory which has been accumulated through experience, knowledge, tradition, time. And from this background of memory we react and this reaction is thinking.  So thought is essential at certain levels but when thought projects itself psychologically as the future and the past, creating fear as well as pleasure, the mind is made dull and therefore inaction is inevitable.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
So I ask myself, `Why, why, why, do I think about the future and the past in terms of pleasure and pain, knowing that such thought creates fear?  Isn't it possible for thought psychologically to stop, for otherwise fear will never end?'
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
One of the functions of thought is to be occupied all the time with something.  Most of us want to have our minds continually occupied so that we are prevented from seeing ourselves as we actually are.  We are afraid to be empty.  We are afraid to look at our fears.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Consciously you can be aware of your fears but at the deeper levels of your mind are you aware of them?  And how are you going to find out the fears that are hidden, secret?  Is fear to be divided into the conscious and the subconscious?  This is a very important question.  The specialist, the psychologist, the analyst, have divided fear into deep superficial layers, but if you follow what the psychologist says or what I say, you are understanding our theories, our dogmas, our knowledge, you are not understanding yourself.  You cannot understand yourself according to Freud or Jung, or according to me.  Other people's theories have no importance whatever.  It is of yourself that you must ask the question, is fear to be divided into the conscious and subconscious?  Or is there only fear which you translate into different forms?  There is only one desire; there is only desire.  You desire.  The objects of desire change, but desire is always the same.  So perhaps in the same way there is only fear. You are afraid of all sorts of things but there is only one fear.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
When you realize that fear cannot be divided you will see that you have put away altogether this problem of the subconscious and so have cheated the psychologists and the analysts.  When you understand that fear is a single movement which expresses itself in different ways and when you see the movement and not the object to which the movement goes, then you are facing an immense question: how can you look at it without the fragmentation which the mind has cultivated?
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
There is only total fear, but how can the mind which thinks in fragments observe this total picture?  Can it?  We have lived a life of fragmentation, and can look at that total fear only through the fragmentary process of thought.  The whole process of the machinery of thinking is to break up everything into fragments: I love you and I hate you; you are my enemy, you are my friend; my peculiar idiosyncrasies and inclinations, my job, my position, my prestige, my wife, my child, my country and your country, my God and your God - all that is the fragmentation of thought.  And this thought looks at the total state of fear, or tries to look at it, and reduces it to fragments.  Therefore we see that the mind can look at this total fear only when there is no movement of thought.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Can you watch fear without any conclusion, without any interference of the knowledge you have accumulated about it?  If you cannot, then what you are watching is the past, not fear; if you can, then you are watching fear for the first time without the interference of the past.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
You can watch only when the mind is very quiet, just as you can listen to what someone is saying only when your mind is not chattering with itself, carrying on a dialogue with itself about its own problems and anxieties.  Can you in the same way look at your fear without trying to resolve it, without bringing in its opposite, courage - actually look at it and not try to escape from it?  When you say, `I must control it, I must get rid of it, I must understand it', you are trying to escape from it.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
You can observe a cloud or a tree or the movement of a river with a fairly quiet mind because they are not very important to you, but to watch yourself is far more difficult because there the demands are so practical, the reactions so quick.  So when you are directly in contact with fear or despair, loneliness or jealousy, or any other ugly state of mind, can you look at it so completely that your mind is quiet enough to see it? Can the mind perceive fear and not the different forms of fear - perceive total fear, not what you are afraid of?  If you look merely at the details of fear or try to deal with your fears one by one, you will never come to the central issue which is to learn to live with fear.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
To live with a living thing such as fear requires a mind and heart that are extraordinarily subtle, that have no conclusion and can therefore follow every movement of fear.  Then if you observe and live with it - and this doesn't take a whole day, it can take a minute or a second to know the whole nature of fear - if you live with it so completely you inevitably ask, 'Who is the entity who is living with fear?  Who is it who is observing fear, watching all the movements of the various forms of fear as well as being aware of the central fact of fear?  Is the observer a dead entity, a static being, who has accumulated a lot of knowledge and information about himself, and is it that dead thing who is observing and living with the movement of fear?  Is the observer the past or is he a living thing?' What is your answer?  Do not answer me, answer yourself.  Are you, the observer, a dead entity watching a living thing or are you a living thing watching a living thing?  Because in the observer the two states exist.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The observer is the censor who does not want fear; the observer is the totality of all his experiences about fear.  So the observer is separate from that thing he calls fear; there is space between them; he is forever trying to overcome it or escape from it and hence this constant battle between himself and fear - this battle which is such a waste of energy.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
As you watch, you learn that the observer is merely a bundle of ideas and memories without any validity or substance, but that fear is an actuality and that you are trying to understand a fact with an abstraction which, of course, you cannot do.  But,in fact, is the observer who says, `I am afraid', any different from the thing observed which is fear?  The observer is fear and when that is realized there is no longer any dissipation of energy in the effort to get rid of fear, and the time-space interval between the observer and the observed disappears.  When you see that you are a part of fear, not separate from it - that you are fear - then you cannot do anything about it; then fear comes totally to an end. </DIV></TD></TR></TABLE></BODY></HTML>
